- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:10:02 +0200
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > We must see what we can do to relax these requirements, but I would not > accept that the test should be that specification must fully define a DRM > system, as you suggest. We do not do this for other HTML specifications: The > video element does not define a codec, the geo-location API does not define > a method of determining geographic location, WebGL can't be implemented > (performantly) without hardware which is in practice proprietary (i.e. > graphics cards). There are different kinds of proprietary. When the codecs of the video element were left open ended in the spec, it was indeed expected that proprietary codecs would be plugged into that extension point. However, when that extension point was made, it was expected that the proprietary codecs would be proprietary in the sense that there'd be someone out there seeking patent licensing fees. It was not expected that codecs that couldn't be implemented without access to secret knowledge would be plugged into the extension point. I.e. proprietary in the sense of essential secrets was not expected. Video, geolocation and WebGL can all be independently interoperably implemented without access to secrets. The same is not true for EME with the kind of CDMs that actually matter. It appears that the proponents of EME intend to target content to CDMs that will not be independently interoperably implementable without access to secrets. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 07:10:31 UTC